patch_many

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The agent receives no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one line), but it achieves conciseness at the expense of usefulness. It does not provide enough information to be actionable. A good description should be both concise and informative; this one is only concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the input schema (nested objects, many properties) and the absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It offers no context about what the tool returns, how it handles partial updates, or any constraints. The agent lacks essential information for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter 'body' (an array of Recipe-Input objects) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no semantics beyond the parameter name, which is generic. The agent must infer that 'body' contains the update data, but no guidance is given on required fields or structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is merely the title and endpoint, essentially restating the tool name. It lacks a clear verb+resource explanation, making it borderline tautology. While 'Patch Many' suggests updating multiple recipes, it does not clarify the scope or distinguish it from similar tools like 'patch_one' or 'recipe_crud_update_many'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'patch_one', 'create_many', or 'recipe_crud_update_many'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.